Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
“You do realise you just claimed reasoning was stupid right? I mean in writing for every one to see?”
Um, if you misread what I said and apologize I will accept it, otherwise: you do realize your attacking a straw man right? I mean it’s there for everyone to see it. I never said reasoning was stupid. I said only reasoning with a two year old was when they needed to be disciplined. Furthermore, I never said you should lash out and vent your anger by spanking a child. You should assume the best of your opponent. Of course parents shouldn’t hit kids out of anger. In fact they shouldn’t punish at all because of their own blind rage. Reason should govern their actions and discipline.
Yes trying to reason for a few or ten minutes about relatively abstract moral principles with a two year old while also not punishing in any other way is very stupid. It’s almost like trying to reason with a rock or monkey (yeah there’s a little hyperbole and sarcasm there). Then when the monkey ignores you and poops on your carpet again your surprised that he didn’t respect your wishes.
@Dumb Ox
If you beat them, they do not learn respect but just fear. You can't beat respect into a person.
I good slap on the fingers of a child might save them tipping a pot of boiling water from the oven onto themselves and more efficient than explaining non-equilibrium statistical thermodynamics, the principles of heat transfer, specific heat capacity, latent heat energy etc to them.
And a hard clap of your hands has the same effect. A loud and sharp noise will startle them and capture their immediate attention.
I good slap on the fingers of a child might save them tipping a pot of boiling water from the oven onto themselves and more efficient than explaining non-equilibrium statistical thermodynamics, the principles of heat transfer, specific heat capacity, latent heat energy etc to them.
Yet again David nails it.
"Ok basically I’m trying to make an argument that’s called ad absurdum (forget the exact Latin phrase). "
It's called reductio ad absurdum, and it's often a fallacy in informal logic. So well done for noticing your argument is fallacious, but marks off for noticing AFTER I just pointed it out to you.
" I hold that to be obviously absurd and, hence one of your premises must be wrong."
So is that a superpower you possess? Now that's how you use reductio ad absurdum.
I have no interest in your absurd analogy, my bad for not telling you in my last post, oh wait a minute...
Hitting children is barbaric and cruel, it's lazy parenting, and it can even enforce the idea that violence is an acceptable way to express emotions like anger and frustration. Would you be ok with someone twice your size giving a few slap if you did something they didn't like? How about if they held you down and spanked you? Don't answer those they're rhetorical.
"If it’s not abuse for a coach to coerce/cause a player to inflict some level of physical pain on themselves, then why would it be abuse for a parent to slap a child’s hand or butt and cause some slight stinging?"
For the same reasons I gave the last two times you asked this question.
Nice to see you know about logical fallacies. You should know then that I didn’t make one. As you note, reductio ad absurdum is not always a fallacy. Especially since I was transparent with my line of argument. Basically I was seeing if you would be consistent and accept the absurd conclusion in which case we would have to argue about the absurdity or lack thereof of the conclusion or if you would see how stupid the conclusion was and rethink your premises. Another option which you took is that you deny the conclusion follows which I argue that it does. Nothing in that line of reasoning is logically fallacious
“Don't answer those they're rhetorical“
Yeah just replace with put in time out, lock you in a room, take away keys to your car with slap. This is just cheap rhetoric.
Oh yeah call the grammar Nazi because you made a grammar/typo mistake:
giving a few slap
There are plenty of other mistakes from other posts that I could point out. But it’s distasteful to do so on a forum. It’s not a big deal. Yes I do realize I have particularly bad spelling and what not but I am typing on a phone too and who really cares that much anyways.
Striking kids when you are mad/disapprove of what they have done; is a great way to teach your kids to strike others when they are mad/disapprove of what others have done.
Putting kidnappers in jail is a great way to teach people to take other people’s freedom away....
That has the same logical form as your above argument. It’s simplistic and not a good argument regardless of the truthfulness or lack there of of the conclusion.
Another absurdly stupid analogy. He wasn't suggesting children should never be punished, only that physical abuse reinforces the idea that violence is a legitimate reaction when you're frustrated angry or annoyed. What message do you think it sends to would be kidnappers when kidnappers are jailed for violating the rights of others, do take your time on this one as I feel you're missing the point here.
" It’s simplistic and not a good argument regardless of the truthfulness "
Whether an argument is simplistic has no bearing on it's validity, and his argument about being violent to small children reinforcing their impressionable minds that violence is an acceptable reaction to situations where you are angered frustrated or annoyed, is actually supported by some research. You're simply evading addressing all arguments you don't like by being dismissive.
If you are talking about a parent who spanks out of anger and in an openly angry way then I agree with you. However, I am saying you can spank in a dispassionate way and notice that he did use a /disapprove of so its slightly ambiguous if he was only referring to spanking out of passion. In that case what I said still holds water. Replace simplistic with overly simplistic or invalid.
Nyarlathotep "Striking kids when you are mad/disapprove of what they have done; is a great way to teach your kids to strike others when they are mad/disapprove of what others have done."
Now that is an excellent point.
I am guessing you guys are unaware of the 4 quadrants of behaviour in learning theory.
Learning needs all 4 and one quadrants is actual negatives like punishment. It is used the least but still needs to be used.
I was a parent to four people. I did not use corporal punishment. IMO, it is not necessary, sends a shitty message, and doesn’t result in positive behavior changes.
@Dumb Ox
"Btw my dads has a masters in phycology and says spanking in moderation is fine, so don’t make an argument from your own authority. "
And my wife has her PhD in one discipline of psych, and 2 Masters in others. Her position is contrary to your father's.
I suggest you re-think the argument of violence against children, considering you appear to have come from such a sad past. Break the cycle of abuse, do not lay your hands on your children.
"Every single sports team ever uses corporal punishment, running or something like that."
Wtf sports teams are these?
corporal punishment
noun
physical punishment, such as caning or flogging.
You would consider forcing someone to spank themselves to be corporal punishment right? Why not forcing someone to run or bear crawl for the primary purpose of punishment or discipline? Even if corporal punishment has some exact meaning that I’m not using correctly it’s pretty obvious what I’m talking about.
@ Dumb Ox
"You would consider forcing someone to spank themselves to be corporal punishment right?"
How can anyone force others to abuse their bodies? If someone tried to force me to spank myself, someone would be on the receiving end of physical pain, and it would not be me.
And as Sheldon pointed out, a child cannot evade a beating from the parents, while an athlete on any team can just say no.
No matter how you attempt to phrase it, beating a child is abusive, unnecessary, and just plain sadistic cruelty. You can not justify or rationalize something so cruel.
"Even if corporal punishment has some exact meaning that I’m not using correctly it’s pretty obvious what I’m talking about."
It has a dictionary definition based on common usage, which i posted for you in that post. Lets try it again...
The OED defines corporal punishment as...
NOUN
Physical punishment, such as caning or flogging.
If your meaning is different to this then you have to clarify you're deviating from that or no one will know. I would say striking a child at all could be classed as corporal punishment, even if it is one single blow.
You are using vague analogies about sporting 'punishments' as comparable with an adult striking or even beating a child, your sports analogies are just confusing the issue to be honest.
They really aren’t vague since I clarified with examples of running bear crawling ect. Secondly, note that it says physical punishment in the definition. So from that alone it’s not clear I was misusing corporal punishment. Finally, my point could still be valid semantics aside if the analogy between forced running or something and spanking is valid. The analogy shouldn’t be confusing at all. Furthermore, it helps to point something out: spanking cannot be bad merely because of the physical pain aspect, otherwise common discipline among sports team would also be bad. I am forcing you to defend you basic presuppositions which people tend not to do because it’s hard. It’s easy to have a general principle: spanking is beating and beating is always wrong. Then if someone says it’s okay to spank a child and that’s it’s not beating you say how ridiculous how barbaric. Then that person shows you the striking similarities between punishments sports teams use and spanking and they challenge your basic premises. And what exactly is your response? It certainly hasn’t been to show a meaningful difference between the two.
@Arakish Re: Long post
No need to apologize. It was worth every minute of reading. Bravo!
When my daughter was in a public high school, she received a lot of christian indoctrination....teachers recommending that students participate in "pro life" marches, recommending that she should join the Christian Athlete's association since she was on the track team, listening to the coach lead others in prayer and dealing with the disapproval and singling out of the teacher for not participating although she was silent and respectful. No student should ever be put in the position of having to defend their faith or lack of it...it does not belong in school. It is sickening to hear people blindly accept the platitudes without question. When they say that god loves them, I have to respond that it is a very perverted type of love. When they say god so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son....really? So out of all the eons of eternity he permitted his son to be born into a good respected family where he lived a good life for 30 years ( if one is to accept the bible as having any truth) then became an itinerant preacher for three years. He had a couple of pretty bad days at the end, but no worse than many others of his time suffered and certainly no worse than his followers inflicted on others over the centuries....torture by hideous means, burning at the stake etc etc ad infinitum. Then he was returned to his father to live and reign in heaven. So what did god actually give? Rather he lent his son for a brief time then got him back. So think about what you blindly accept and look at the damage it has done to the world and to individuals.
After reading the replies from posters, long posts at that from some, I'm quite surprised no one answered the OP's very simple question.
The answer is very easy - it has to do with bloodguilt. I don't even need to use the scripture to answer it. In fact, the law states that if you see your fellow man who will perish in a fast moving water or in a fire and didn't warn him, his blood will be on you if he loses his life.
Scripturally speaking, the Bible says:
[Eze 33:6-8 ESV] 6 But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, so that the people are not warned, and the sword comes and takes any one of them, that person is taken away in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at the watchman's hand. 7 "So you, son of man, I have made a watchman for the house of Israel. Whenever you hear a word from my mouth, you shall give them warning from me. 8 If I say to the wicked, O wicked one, you shall surely die, and you do not speak to warn the wicked to turn from his way, that wicked person shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand.
[Act 18:6 ESV] 6 And when they opposed and reviled him, he shook out his garments and said to them, "Your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent. From now on I will go to the Gentiles."
[Act 20:26-27 ESV] 26 Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all, 27 for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God.
eddiem3,
"After reading the replies from posters..."
What makes you think ancient Middle Eastern people had the inside track to the God character? Do you think that they were more intelligent than you and the billions of people who have lived since then?
What makes you think you will exist forever when we know that stars and galaxies die?
Not sure what you're asking but I think you're referring to the Bible writers as having an " inside track to the God character". Comparing their knowledge to us, there's no comparison as we're more advanced in technology and education. But as far as "inside track to the God character" is concerned, nah. We have the same " inside track to the God character". The Bible is here for all to see and study and to educate themselves about the "... inside track to the God character". In fact, we have more "inside track to the God character" than them since many of what they wrote as prophecy is now happening today.
Take the prophet Daniel for example. He admitted.
[Dan 8:26-27 ESV] 26 The vision of the evenings and the mornings that has been told is true, but seal up the vision, for it refers to many days from now." 27 And I, Daniel, was overcome and lay sick for some days. Then I rose and went about the king's business, but I was appalled by the vision and did not understand it.
As for living forever:
[Rev 21:4 ESV] 4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away."
@eddiem3
"In fact, we have more "inside track to the God character" than them since many of what they wrote as prophecy is now happening today."
Which prophecy?
There's a long list but here's one that is due soon:
[1Th 5:3 NET] 3 Now when they are saying, "There is peace and security," then sudden destruction comes on them, like labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will surely not escape.
@eddiem3
A good prediction should not be vague and should be time limited. Many people throughout history have said we are living in peaceful times, some of whom had wholly peaceful lives, some of who had violent deaths. By that measure, the prophecy is categorically false.
Pages